Everything is Theologicalhttps://everythingistheological.com
Tue, 24 Apr 2018 13:38:34 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.1Thoughts on Bonhoeffer and The Cost of Discipleshiphttps://everythingistheological.com/thoughts-on-bonhoeffer-and-the-cost-of-discipleship/
https://everythingistheological.com/thoughts-on-bonhoeffer-and-the-cost-of-discipleship/#respondTue, 04 Jun 2013 16:20:31 +0000http://everythingistheological.com/?p=288Read More...]]>It would not be an exaggeration to say that The Cost of Discipleship has made a larger impact on my life than any other book save the Bible itself. Although the concept of radical discipleship is in vogue in our contemporary setting, when Bonhoeffer wrote The Cost of Discipleship, this was certainly not the case. His characterization of genuine discipleship over against “cheap grace” should be challenging to all who desire to genuinely follow Christ. When I first read the book years ago I was delighted by the way he articulated the ideas and suspicions that had already begun to form in my mind and it affected me in many ways, beginning with my understanding of the gospel itself.

Having spent much of my life in various faith traditions that clung to the “Four Spiritual Laws” as the quintessential presentation of the gospel, I became concerned with the fact that this formulation could not be found in the pages of Scripture. Moreover, some of the verses that undergirded it were improperly exegeted (e.g., Rev 3:20 is misinterpreted as a promise to unbelievers when the words are actually spoken to the members of an established church; not to mention its anthropocentric rather than Christocentric focus in general). I discovered not only that this formulation was fundamentally flawed, but that the mechanical “repeat this prayer after me” nature of it smacked of cheap grace. As Bonhoeffer explained, it was the “preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance… grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ living and incarnate” (Cost 47). Not only is the gospel of cheap grace a false one, it is devoid of the power of the genuine article and can only yield nominal, cultural Christians; Christians in name only (let me here hasten to add that I intend no disrespect to those who offer to lead others in prayer, nor to those who have been moved to pray in response to the gospel, however, such prayer is always a response to the message of salvation offered in the faithful proclamation of the gospel, not its catalyst).

In contrast to the gospel of cheap grace, the true gospel never leaves a man or woman unchanged. It dismantles one’s life, disorients one’s worldview and perception of reality itself, and in that sense it is devastating. But it is a necessary devastation; one that clears the way to raise a new edifice built on the unshakable foundation of Jesus Christ. Bonhoeffer knew this devastation and preached of it. In his sermon on Psalm 63:3 he writes,

At some point in our psalmist’s life something quite decisive happened: God came into his life. From that moment his life was changed. I don’t mean that suddenly he became good and pious – it may well be that he was that before God came. But now none other than God had come and had drawn near to him. What made his life remarkable was simply that God was always there with him and he could no longer get away from God. It completely tore his life apart (Testament195).

Once the gospel has deconstructed the old edifice and the rubble has been cleared, the new edifice built on the foundation of Christ begins with a new understanding of reality, viz., Jesus Christ Himself.

This reality reorients one’s worldview and results in the realization that “What is of ultimate importance is now no longer that I should become good, or that the condition of the world should be made better by my action, but that the reality of God should show itself everywhere to be the ultimate reality” (Ethics 186). This concept presents a serious challenge to the Aristotelian framework that so often undergirds so-called Christian ethics. This makes me wonder if it is at all appropriate to speak of Christian ethics. Indeed, I am not at all convinced that “moral formation” or “character formation” should be a primary focus for the church or that the language of secular ethics should be utilized as the church reflects on complex social issues as Bonhoeffer was wont to do (e.g., in his appropriation of “just war” rationale as a means to justify tyranicide). In fact, it seems that “spiritual formation” is a more appropriate focus and it seems more biblically precise for a Christian community to talk in terms of holiness rather than in terms of ethics or morality. While this may seem like hair splitting, I think the distinction is an important one to make. Ethics (a la Kant) can be “emancipated” from Scriptural moorings; holiness is inextricably theological in essence. Holiness is the reflection of the character of God and thus bears witness of transcendent reality to a world whose gaze is perpetually inward in its focus and egocentric in its ethical reflection.

Bonhoeffer has also challenged me to consider how exactly a Christian, especially one who is committed to non-violence should work through the complexities of determining the best course of action when confronted with great evil. Is there ever a time when a Christian should resort to violence, especially when confronted with a corrupt state, one which has abdicated its responsibility to bear the sword in service to good (Rom 13:4)? This is not an easy question to answer, even for one who adheres to the Anabaptist tradition of non-violence. It would be far too simplistic to dismiss Bonhoeffer’s actions as a violation of a categorical prohibition of violence. In fact, I have not yet reached a level of commitment to pacifism that would prevent me from defending my family from one who would seek their physical harm. But if one is willing to use violence in defense of his family, shouldn’t that naturally be extended to a willingness to use violence to defend his neighbor, and if the neighbor, why not the defense of the state through warfare or defense against a rogue state through assassination, tyranicide, etc.? This line of reasoning would seem to justify Bonhoeffer’s decision to participate in the assassination plot against Hitler.

Nonetheless, both the New Testament and the first 300 years of church history seem to mitigate against such a conclusion. Jesus refused to engage in insurrection against the pagan state and, much to the dismay of His disciples, chose to suffer execution rather than take up arms against Rome. Of course, it had to be this way. Jesus’ death fulfilled prophecy and provided atonement for sin. Yet, all of the Apostles, save John, were also martyred and their deaths were neither prophesied nor propitiatory. Moreover, at the time when Jesus told His disciples to take up their crosses (Lk 9:23), the cross had no spiritual or theological content; it was simply an instrument of capital punishment (Yoder, Politics 38). When Jesus bids us come and die, it seems that He has a literal physical death in view rather than a hyper-spiritualized self-denial. Additionally, up until the time that Constantine co-opted the church, Christians suffered severe, systematic persecution at the hands of the state yet did not resort to a violent defense. Indeed, the church grew exponentially in spite of (or perhaps because of?) persecution. Tertullian’s famous maxim that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” was well founded in historical data. Consequently, while it may be a feasible basis for the contemplation of armed conflict conducted by the state, the “just-war” theory produced by Augustine is in actuality nothing more than salve for the conscience of a church that has abandoned 300 years of pacifist martyrdom and exchanged the teaching of the New Testament for the power, sword, and false security of the state.

Could not a distinction be made between defending one’s family against brigands on the one hand, and violent resistance against the state on the other? Romans 13 seems to support such a distinction, however Jesus’ instruction to “not resist an evil person” (Mt 5:39) may very well negate such a difference. Does that exhortation to non-resistance apply only to the individual or does it apply to the defense of one’s family as well? The latter is very likely the case and perhaps I have simply not reached a level of spiritual maturity to be able to honestly say that I would obey that command when it comes to the defense of my loved ones. In such a circumstance, I can certainly sympathize with Bonhoeffer’s dilemma.

Bonhoeffer’s commitment to the priority of preaching also deeply impressed me. It has been said that the center of the Roman Catholic mass is the Eucharist, while the center of a Protestant worship service is the homily. However, after spending the past three decades attending various Protestant denominations (including Lutheran, Baptist, Pentecostal, and Anabaptist) I have to wonder how central the sermon actually is in our worship. In an age when the sermon has been reduced to 25 minutes of surface-slush with more pop-psychology than theological content, it seems that the typical sermon is crafted to deliver the highest entertainment value in the shortest amount of time rather than being an exposition of God’s word wherein we have a genuine encounter with the living Christ.

The church today is in desperate need of a renewed commitment to the exposition of the Word and pastors who are biblically literate. Likewise, since the only church growth strategy visible in Scripture is the faithful proclamation of the gospel, the modern obsession with church growth schemes and programming needs to meet with a swift and sudden death. It is my prayer that God will empower me in my ministry to resist the temptation to be overly concerned with attendance and to rest in the organic nature of the church, confident that Christ will meet us in the proclamation of the Word and the congregation will either grow or decline, however God sees fit.

Finally, Bonhoeffer’s unwavering commitment that his theology and ministry be thoroughly Christocentric is refreshing. It is an ever-present temptation to become overly enamored with the great figures of our various traditions (whether Menno Simons, Luther, Calvin, or Wesley) to the point that their names cross our lips more frequently than the name of Jesus, and thus we allow the shadow of mortal men to eclipse God Himself. But for Bonhoeffer, it was first, last, and always Christ. I can do no better than to join Pastor Bonhoeffer in the prayer he offered for the students of the underground seminary at Finkenwalde and extend that prayer to all who have faith and hope in Jesus, “To die in Christ, that this be granted us, that our last hour not be a weak hour, that we die as confessors of Christ, whether old or young, whether quickly or after long suffering, whether seized and laid hold of by the Lord of Babylon or quietly and gently – that is our prayer today, that our last word might only be: Christ” (Testament 252). Amen and amen.

The following is the manuscript from a recent sermon I delivered at Oasis Community Church. Some portions are in outline form rather than full manuscript form. One should have his or her Bible close by while going through the expository section. The podcast link above is a recording of the actual sermon as delivered.

Before we consider Peter’s presentation of the gospel, we need to understand that this wasn’t the only gospel in circulation at the time. There was a very pervasive gospel proclaimed by the Roman Empire, which represented a complete merging of religion and politics. That is to say, the Greek and Roman mythological deities played an important role in support of Roman power. The gods supported the empire and the empire had a gospel to proclaim, ironically considered a gospel of peace known as Pax Romana. It went something like this, “The Lord, Caesar Augustus, son of god and savior of the world, brings you peace.” This gospel was carried by evangelists ahead of the Roman military with the implication being, accept this gospel of peace or we will force it upon you through warfare. Either way, the people who heard this gospel were ultimately oppressed by the Empire.

34-35:

Shows no partiality / no respecter of persons. This seems intutitive to us today; of course God shows no partiality between persons. But for Peter, Paul, and other 1st century Jews this news was somewhat earth shattering. Jews were the people of the covenant, God’s chosen people, His special treasure. Gentiles were untouchable, unclean, godless. In fact, it was common to refer to Gentiles as dogs. Now Peter has had an epiphany, he says now I understand (καταλαμβάνομαι – grasp, comprehend). All of a sudden Petr gets it: God’s program for salvation is not limited to any people group or nation. God has a global agenda that doesn’t require Gentiles to become Jews before they enter the kingdom.

There is such a natural tendency toward prejudice and ethnocentrism that I think from time to time all of us are tempted to see the people group or denomination with which we most closely identify as occupying a privileged or at least preferential place before God. When you imagine life in eternity, what is the racial/national/denominational makeup of that crowd?

The one who fears Him and does what is right. This doesn’t mean what is right in the eyes of one’s society or culture. It is actually the one who does righteousness, what is right in the eyes of God. The one who follows God to the best of his ability to the degree of revelation he has received.

This is the one who is acceptable (pleasing or favorable) to God. Peter is not preaching justification by works here. The point is, God does not favor one race or nation. It is those fear Him and do righteousness who are favorable or pleasing in His sight. (Cornelius was a God-fearing Gentile).

36:

“…preaching good news of peace through Jesus Christ…” or “preaching the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ.” Why does Peter call it the gospel of peace? Because apart from the work of Jesus Christ, we are not at peace with God, we are at war with Him. The Bible says that before we come to faith, we are enemies of God because of our sin. But through Christ, this state of enmity is changed to a state of peace, a state of holistic shalom. Not only an absence of conflict, but an overall sense of peace and wellbeing with God that leads us to peace and wellbeing with our fellow man.Or as Paul put it in his letter to the Romans, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life” (Rom 5:10)

“He is Lord of all” – now this was a controversial claim indeed.

A Jewish audience would hear the title Lord and equate it with God. A circumlocution that persists to this day.

A Gentile audience would here the title Lord and equate it with Caesar. πάντων κύριος – this title was widely used for Caesar, in fact it was a standard element of Roman Imperial propaganda. In the Aneid, Virgil’s preeminent work of Roman imperial propaganda, the will of Jupiter is stated at the very beginning of the story, in the mythological god’s own voice: “On these people [meaning the future Romans] I place neither boundaries nor periods of empire; I have granted them dominion without end.” Thus Caesar was fashioned as the Lord of all.

The proclamation that Jesus is Lord is a fundamental element of the gospel. And if Jesus is Lord, then Caesar isn’t! See why the gospel was considered subversive? Might I just suggest that the real gospel still is? Or at least it should be. The real gospel lays claim to our exclusive allegiance and that is very threatening to the human political structures.

Even more importantly, if Jesus indeed is Lord of all things, and I accept Him as such, there is no aspect of my life that He does not lay claim to; no element of my being that does not need to come under submission to Him.

37:

“You yourselves know…” Peter’s audience had some familiarity with the historical events surrounding the life of Jesus, but they don’t really understand the theological significance nor the existential implications. In other words, they don’t understand how these historical events impact their lives.

It is not so very different today. Most people in our culture are familiar with the historical events surrounding the life and death of Jesus. Although they have been emptied of much of their theological content, the events of Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter are widely celebrated in this country and through those celebrations, the majority of Americans have become familiar at least with the general story line of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Nonetheless, many of those who are familiar with the historical events fail to comprehend the theological and existential significance of them.

38: “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth…” The Greek word is χρίω (I annoint). This is where the word Christ comes from (meaning annointed one) it is a direct translation of the Hebrew word Messiah and you may recall that this is one of the titles used for the King of Israel. Notice how this works. The operative agent in this annointing is God. The people didn’t annoint Jesus as King, a prophet didn’t annoint Jesus as King, it was God Himself who annointed Jesus as King of His kingdom with the Holy Spirit and with power. But notice what Jesus did with this power: unlike earthly kings who use their power to dominate and oppress their subjects (e.g., Caesar), Jesus used His power to heal and resore all who were under the oppression and domination of the devil. Rather than an oppressor, Jesus is a liberator.

39: “they put Him to death by hanging Him on a tree…” the cross is always an element of the apostolic gospel. It is the cross that is a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles. It is at the cross where Jesus’ life was given as a ransom for sinful man. it is at the cross where God’s wrath and justice coalesce with His love and mercy.

40-41:

“but God raised Him on the third day…” likewise, the resurrection of Jesus is always a central element of the apostolic gospel.

“who ate and drank with Him…” This was a bodily resurrection. Jesus was not and is not a disembodied Spirit; He had a material body.

42:

“preach to the people”: the function of the apostles was to proclaim the message of the kingdom of God to the people.

“testify that He has been appointed by God to be judge of the loving and the dead” (cf. Dan 7:13-14). This is one of the basic elements of the gospel that is so frequently omitted by Christians today. We don’t want to talk about a coming judgment because that just sounds too… judgmental… to harsh. I think it is tempting to distance ourselves from terms like judgment and sin for two reasons:

1) Because the church broadly has a reputation for being judgmental and we certainly want to distance ourselves from that.

2) Because words like judgment and sin can be offensive and they just don’t sound very loving.

Although I sympathize with those ideas, if we omit the coming judgment of Christ from the gospel, we find ourselves on a genuine slippery slope, and a short one at that.

Example: Conversation with PhD theologian.

Talking about tendency in the church to pick certain pet sins like homosexuality. Leader in a large urban church, heavy emphasis on outreach and being seeker-sensitive. They don’t talk about sin because that is unloving. They simply preach the love of God and the gospel. A homosexual couple that were two of the most committed followers of Christ in his church.

Is it loving to edit out large sections of Scripture because they might offend someone? Is it loving to edit the gospel, to make it less demanding and thus more appealing to the masses? This is what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace.” In the cost of discipleship he wrote, “Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline, Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate” (47).

All of us have different forms of sin in our lives and all of these sins are equally heinous before a holy God. But the gospel never leaves us where we are. It always changes us, and leads us into a deeper union with a God who loves us too deeply to leave oppressed by an in bondage to sin.

43:

All of this is supported by Scripture

Everyone who believes receives forgiveness of sins through His name

“believes” (πιστεύω – to trust oneself in someone or something to complete confidence.

this is the invitation

This is the way the gospel was presented by the apostles. Tragically, however, this is not the gospel that is proclaimed in many quarters of the church today. Just as there were competing false gospels in Peter’s day, so there are competing false gospels in our time. Perhaps this is due to a desire to make the gospel less offensive or more palatable to the world. It is one thing to contextualize the message of the gospel for a new culture, it quite another to relativize it to my culture or philosophy and thereby transform it into something altogether different; something devoid of power.

Here are a few of the false gospels I am familiar with, perhaps you have heard others:

Prosperity gospel: health and wealth gospel. Your best life now… This false gospel has been fabricated to suit our cultural preoccupation with materialism and it is rampant today.

Problem:

First, materialism is rooted in covetousness, which is idolatry (Eph 5:5, Col 3:7). The prosperity gospel is an idolatrous gospel.

Second, the kingdom is not entered through comfort but through tribulation and suffering (Ac 14:22).

Third, “As they were going along the road, someone said to him, ‘I will follow you wherever you go.’And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head’” (Lk 9:57-58). The truth is, as followers of Christ, we are not promised material comforts but persecution.

Constantinian gospel: a slight modification to the gospel of Rome. Not only do the Roman mythological gods support the agenda of the empire, but Jesus does too. This is easily seen today in the American Evangelical church’s preoccupation with politics, whether it be on the left or the right. At best, this is a misled attempt to bring about the kingdom of God by the power of the state; at worst it is simply a claim of mythic support for one particular political agenda.

Problem: the Bible shows no interest in transforming the state but in creating an alternative social reality.

Social gospel: focused on the transformation of society and culture – social justice.

Problem: social justice is important, but social justice is a natural byproduct of a community of Jesus followers who are living out the implications of the gospel, it is not the gospel itself.

The gospel of good deeds: summed up in this quote frequently and errantly attributed to Francis of Assisi, “Preach the gospel at all times and if necessary use words.” That sounds good doesn’t it? Just go love people and they will see the gospel in your life?

Problem: this is utter nonsense. There is no gospel without words. What is the difference between philanthropy and Christian charity? Simply this: the latter is done explicitly in the name of Jesus. Really just another version of the social gospel.

Four spiritual laws: particularly insidious because it is so close, yet it has the potential to be very misleading.

God loves you and offers a wonderful plan for your life.

What a coincidence, I love me and I have a wonderful plan for my life!

Man is sinful and separated from God. Therefore, he cannot know and experience God’s love and plan for his life.

Jesus Christ is God’s only provision for man’s sin. Through Him you can know and experience God’s love and plan for your life.

We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know and experience God’s love and plan for our lives.

We Receive Christ Through Personal Invitation: repeat this prayer after me.

Problem: the gospel is not about you and your life, it is about Jesus Christ and His kingdom. And His kingdom is not entered by simply repeating a prayer but through faith in Jesus.

Gal 1:6-9: “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.”

Characteristic of these false gospels: anthropocentric

Characteristics of the apostolic gospel: Christocentric

Peter’s formulation:

Jesus Messiah is Lord of all

Jesus was put to death by being hanged on a tree

God raised Jesus on the third day

Jesus has been appointed by God to judge the living and the dead

Everyone who believes in Jesus receives forgiveness of sins through His name, just as the Scriptures say.

The following is the manuscript from a recent sermon I delivered at Oasis Community Church. Some portions are in outline form rather than full manuscript form. One should have his or her Bible close by while going through the expository section. The podcast link above is a recording of the actual sermon as delivered.

Text: Acts 4:1-14

1-4 Persecuted for the name

1-2 One of the things I want you to notice about this text as we make our way through it are all of the people who hold positions of power. Here we have the captain of the temple guard and the Sadduccees. These were powerful people in Jerusalem. It was the temple guard who arrested Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane and it was their job to keep order in the temple courts. They of course were accompanied by the Sadduccees, a powerful religious party made up of monied aristocrats, to which the chief-priestly famalies belonged. And this group of powerful men didn’t just saunter up to Peter and John, the Greek implies they came upon them suddenly in a show of force because they were throughly miffed or as Luke puts it, “greatly annoyed.” (ἐφίστημι).But why are these men so annoyed? Luke gives us two reasons: 1) because they were teaching the people, and 2) because they were proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. In short, they were proclaiming the gospel. This would have annoyed the Sadduccees first of all because these were common, uneducated men who were not authorized to teach in the temple, this was a privilege retained for the educated and powerful Scribes. Secondly, the Sadduccees would have been annoyed because the apostles were preaching that Jesus had been resurrected and they didn’t believe in resurrection! And thirdly, one of the reasons the Sadduccees were so powerful is because they had cozied up to the Roman occupiers and had become their political allies; as long as Rome was in charge, they retained power. But Jesus had been condemned for political subversion against the Empire and there is no doubt that the message of the gospel was, and is, radically subversive.

3 So, this annoyed group did what powerful people do when they feel threatened, the flexed their muscle and threw the apostles in jail. So Peter and John become the first people to be persecuted for the sake of the gospel, which as the narrative of Acts unfolds, becomes a rather common event. Over and over again, when someone preaches the gospel they are imprisoned, stoned, or in some other way persecuted. And of course, the same thing is true today. I think of Pastor Paul from India, his Bible stained with his own blood on account of his proclamation of the gospel.

4 But Luke is quick to insert at this point a bit of good news: many, though not all, who heard Peter’s preaching believed the message of the gospel and were added to the kingdom of God. [Belief: Santa Clause Syndrome]. Many of those in Solomon’s Porch accepted the gospel, others must have been ambivalent, and still others were annoyed. And if you think about it, even today these really are the three most common responses to the gospel when it is preached in its fullness: acceptance, ambivalence, and annoyance.

5-6 The powers are assembled

The next day, the serious power holders were assembled: the rulers (people who held various positions administrative authority), elders (older men who had great influence in Jerusalem), scribes (those who were responsible for copying and teaching the law). But that’s not all, Annas (the acting high priest), and Caiaphas (the de facto high priest), were the most powerful men Israel, both of whom were party to arranging the arrest and condemnation of Jesus. That’s six different categories of very powerful people gathered together. Quite an impressive array to interrogate a couple of peasant fishermen from Galilee don’t you think? This assembly is called the Sanhedrin and it was the highest Jewish court, kind of like the U.S. Supreme Court.

7 So they put them in their midst and asked, “By what power or by what name did you do this?” Now think about that question for a minute. Here you have the most powerful men in Israel, all of whom believe their power or office is derived from God, one of whom is the high priest who on the Day of Atonement wears the name of the LORD on hid turban as he enters the holy of holies to offer sacrifice for the sins of the people, and they are asking a couple of back country fisherman what kind of power they think they have an in whose name do they exercise authority.

So, they spent the night in jail and are being interrogated by the men who put Jesus to death. Peter and John were probably quaking in their boots right? Wrong!

8-11 Peter’s Offensive defense

8 Why aren’t they afraid? Luke tells us as he narrates Peter’s response: “Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said…” Notice what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say, “Peter answered in his eloquence…” Peter was not really known for his personal eloquence was he? In fact, I have often thought it must have been incredibly difficult for him to keep up with Jesus for all those miles traveling through Israel, hopping on one foot because the other was stuck in his mouth J It also doesn’t say, “Peter had been up all night in his cell preparing his defense…” No, it says that Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit. An eloquent response comes out of Peter’s mouth, but the source was the Holy Spirit, just as Jesus had prophesied concerning His disciples, “And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit” (Mk 13:39; cf. Lk 21:12-15).

Read 9-10 Wooo, everybody thought Peter was going to be defending himself but he boldly turns the tables and moves to offense, and he doesn’t dilly dally around about it. It was done by Jesus Christ of Nazareth, “whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead.” Now let’s pause for a minute to consider the payload of that theological bomb Peter just dropped in their lap. First of all, Peter doesn’t just say Jesus of Nazareth, he boldly proclaims “Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” Christ isn’t Jesus last name, it is a title of power and authority, a title of kingship. The Caiaphas who is questioning the apostles is the same Caiaphas who asked Jesus at His trial, “are you the Christ, the Son of God?” and when Jesus answered in the affirmative, Caiaphas accused Him of blasphemy. Now Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, stands before this man and not only calls Jesus the Christ, he moves on to state the facts that although these powerful men crucified Jesus, God raised Him from the dead, and it was by Him that the crippled man was healed, which of course validates Peter’s claim that Jesus is the Christ.

11 But he doesn’t stop there, he continues to validate his claim that Jesus is the Christ by quoting from Psalm 118 and identifying these powerful rulers gathered together as the builders who rejected Jesus as the Christ. Peter is supposed to be on defense here, but clearly he is making offensive maneuvers, offense that the rulers find offensive J

12 No other name

Wow! No other name. Think about how those words would have fallen on the ears of their audience. No other name? Think about the high priest who wore the covenant name of God on his turban. No other name? They had to take such a declaration as blasphemous and surely that statement alone would have been enough to order the execution of the men, but as vv. 13-14 tells us, there was nothing they could say, they couldn’t challenge a single word Peter said because the man who had been healed through the miraculous power of Jesus was standing right there in front of them.The power these men thought they had is exposed as a charade. The ultimate weapon of worldly power is death. It was the weapon of the Roman Empire, it was the weapon of the Sanhedrin, even today it is the weapon of the various power structures of the world. The Sanhedrin used death to try to get rid of Jesus but death couldn’t hold him. Because of the resurrection of Jesus, the power of death has been overcome. As the Apostle Paul said, “Death has been swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory, O death, where is your sting?” (1Co 15:54-55). The systems of power in this world have been disarmed by the overwhelming power of the gospel. Just as Paul wrote to the Colossians, “He [the Father] disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in Him [Jesus]” (Col 2:15).

How many have this v. memorized? Why did you memorize it? Because it proclaims the exclusivity as Jesus as the Savior, the exclusivity of the gospel. There is no other name because there is no power to save in any other name. Think about that in our current context. That means that there is no power to save in the names that are on the lips of so many millions of people. Not in the name of Buddha, Krishna, or Muhammad; not even in the name of Oprah or Dr. Phil! Only in the name of Jesus, the Lord, the Christ, the Messiah, the King. There simply is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

But have you ever asked yourself, “Saved from what?” It is tempting to hyper-spiritualize this and come up with something like, “well of course it means saved from the flames of hell.” And that is true insofar as it goes. But this is all too often misconstrued. This is not salvation for your soul but for your entire being (mind, body, soul, spirit). Certainly this refers to what you might call eschatological salvation, salvation from God’s final judgment and entrance into eternal life. But if you really read Luke-Acts you find that salvation is not just an end-game scenario, something for the next life; it is something begins its effect in the here and now. It’s deliverance from many of the effects of sin even in this life. It’s salvation from the overwhelming burden of wickedness, salvation from guilt, salvation from shame, salvation from social isolation and alienation, it’s salvation from spiritual sickness, and sometimes even salvation from physical and mental illness, but ultimately, it’s salvation from death. It’s a holistic salvation that begins now and is culminated in the resurrection.

Conclusion:

Consistency of Peter’s gospel message (Ac 2:39; 3:14-20; 4:8-12)

Jesus is the Christ!

You killed Him.

God raised and exalted Him!

So what are you going to do about it? Repent.

Divine orchestration and shocking grace. Think about this. Just a few weeks after the death of Jesus an event that sent his disciples reeling, denying Him, and running for cover, just a few short weeks later, two of those men stand before the council that is responsible for the murder of Jesus, the most powerful men in the land and boldly proclaim the gospel. Isn’t the depth of that grace shocking? And the grace isn’t just for the hearers, but also the proclaimer. The gospel was preached in power to the men who crucified the Son of God by the man who denied Him three times and it was all arranged by God! My friends, what better example of unearned merit can there possibly be?

But you know what is even better? God is still doing it; He is still making divine arrangements.

I know a man… mosque, filled with the Spirit, proclaimed the gospel without fear. Became a Holy Spirit junky, who couldn’t wait for his next fix J

It is no accident that we are all here this morning because God has called us together to hear the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, maybe to hear it once again, maybe to hear it for the first time. Either way, this is the message:Because of our sin, we are all responsible for the death of Jesus (! just as if we were members of the Sanhedrin or were among those who shouted “Crucify Him!” We are all guilty of the death of Christ), and though human beings killed him, God raised Him up again, exalted Him to a position of genuine power, gave Him the name of Lord of Lords, and King of Kings. This is the message of the gospel, my friends: Jesus is Lord and there is no other power. He invites you to enter His kingdom.In this church today I assume there are three groups of people.

Perhaps you have genuinely accepted Jesus as Lord,

Perhaps you have been ambivalent to Him,

Or perhaps you have been annoyed or even hostile toward Him, perhaps you have even denied Jesus.

But I am here to tell you today that the past is insignificant and the grace of God goes deeper than all of our sin. Today is all we have and today, in the name of Jesus, I invite you to genuinely trust in Him, to repent of sin, and to enter the kingdom of God. For there is no other name… Amen.

]]>https://everythingistheological.com/no-other-name-acts-41-14/feed/0This Present Darkness: A Reflection On The Futility of Culture War Rhetorichttps://everythingistheological.com/this-present-darkness-a-reflection-on-the-futility-of-culture-war-rhetoric/
https://everythingistheological.com/this-present-darkness-a-reflection-on-the-futility-of-culture-war-rhetoric/#respondTue, 18 Dec 2012 18:43:09 +0000http://everythingistheological.com/?p=259Read More...]]>There is a lot of talk in Evangelical Christian circles about “being at war with American culture,” about how Christians need to flex their political muscle to “make America a Christian nation again.” Much of this rhetoric is couched in the language of warfare and positions the church over against the indigenous culture in which is manifested. But I wonder, does the Bible actually present the kingdom of God or the vocation of the church in this way, or is this the residual rhetoric of Constantinian Christendom, some sort of imperialistic hangover?

To be sure, there is warfare language in the New Testament, but how is it applied? Is it applied to cultures, governments, or the other structures of the world? Let’s consider, for example, one of the famous warfare passages from Ephesians: “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:11-12 ESV).

Note first, “we do not wrestle against flesh and blood.” But aren’t cultures embodied in people of flesh and blood? If so, the church cannot be called to prosecute a war against culture. In fact, the text is completely clear about whom this war is to be waged against: “against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Cosmic powers, spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places, but certainly not people or culture.

So what other type of language does Scripture use to explain how the kingdom of God is to engage the various kingdoms of this world? Interestingly enough, it uses language that is highly political: the language of diplomacy. “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:17-20 ESV).

This word “ambassador” is of particular significance. The Greek word is presbeuo (πρεσβεύω) and in the first century it was a technical term used for Caesar’s ambassadors or legates (the equivalent of the Latin tem legatus). Consequently, when Paul says that we are “ambassadors for Christ,” it indicates that we are to function as His diplomats. Following this logic, the church then functions as an embassy for the kingdom of God, a diplomatic presence in “this present darkness,” an embassy on foreign soil, as it were. But do kingdoms maintain embassies in the midst of nations with whom they are at war? Of course not! In fact, the first order of business when two nations are engaged in the hostility of warfare is to call their diplomats home and close their respective embassies. The fact that Christians continue to be embedded in the various cultures and kingdoms of the world indicates that Christians are nowhere in the posture of warfare, but everywhere in the posture of diplomacy. [1]

Likewise, in times of peace, is an ambassador interested in transforming the culture of the foreign nation where he or she serves, in trying to force the cultural values of his or her homeland on the foreign state? Other than in extreme cases of ethnocentrism or imperial hegemony (both of which are in contradiction with Scripture), this is not how ambassadors operate. As John Howard Yoder explains, “Christians are able to follow Jesus only because they have experienced forgiveness and can depend on the power of the Holy Spirit. People for whom these preconditions are not met cannot possibly be disciples of Jesus on their own account. It would be utopian to expect a Christian life from them, and unloving and legalistic to demand it.”[2]

So, if we are to act as ambassadors, conducting kingdom business from an embassy embedded on foreign soil, what is the message we are to carry to the foreign nationals? Is it one of warfare and hostility? Is it one of cultural or even political transformation? Again, if we simply allow the text to speak for itself, we find that the message with which we have been entrusted is not a one of hostility, condemnation, or transformation, but a message of reconciliation. This is the message: that in Christ, God was not declaring war on the world but reconciling it to Himself. This, my friends, is the gospel (another politically charged term), not that we have loved God and went to war for Him, but that He loved us and sent His Son to die for us (cf. 1Jn 4:10).

Consequently, Christians are to embody the values of an alternative kingdom in the midst of a fallen world. Rather than spending our energies trying to transform the various cultures and kingdoms of the world, we are to embody the culture and political reality of the kingdom of God and, in effect, to invite foreign nationals to expatriate by transferring their allegiance to a new kingdom. Admittedly, this is highly subversive conduct for an ambassador, in fact, conduct that will likely lead to uncomfortable or even dangerous situations, perhaps even to physical death.

This being the case, perhaps Evangelicals should consider putting an end to culture war rhetoric. If bad, even horrific things happen in public schools because “we’ve systematically removed God” from them[3] (as if somehow a Supreme Court decision can realistically impact the omnipresence of God), then how do we explain the countless cases of children who have been molested in churches, or the murders and other tragic events that have occurred in church buildings? Is it because God wasn’t there? No, it is solely because the kingdom of God has not yet been consummated and evil is still afoot in this present darkness.

Consequently, perhaps rather than enlisting as combatants, Christians should take their stands as conscientious objectors in the culture wars. Perhaps we should redeploy our energies, resources, and rhetoric in ways that are more concerned with changing hearts than in changing public policy. Perhaps we should drop the rhetoric of cultural condemnation and transformation, and take up the message of reconciliation, for after all, while we were in open hostility to and rebellion against God, while our allegiance was to “this present darkness,” while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Rom 5:8).

Amen and peace be with you.

[1] Incidentally, the kingdom of God is the only political entity which when subjected to the hostility of open warfare, does not close its embassy. On the contrary, it sends more diplomats to the point of conflict.

The following is the manuscript from a recent sermon I delivered at Oasis Community Church. Some portions are in outline form rather than full manuscript form. One should have his or her Bible close by while going through the expository section. The podcast link above is a recording of the actual sermon as delivered.

Introduction: If I were to ask you what the climax of the book of Exodus is, some of you might point to chapter 12 and the tenth plague that leads to the Exodus event. Others might point to chapter 14 where the sea is parted for the Israelites and Pharaoh meets his watery demise once and for all. Still others might point to chapter 20 with the giving of the law at Sinai. While those are all points of high drama in the book of Exodus, I think the climax is actually found at the beginning of chapter 19. Not only is this the climactic moment of Exodus, I think it is really the climactic moment of the entire OT.

Exposition

Verses 1-4:

You yourselves have seen

What I did to the Egyptians;

How I bore you on eagle’s wings –

Brought you to myself – this was not freedom for freedom’s sake. The ultimate goal, the ultimate end God had in mind was to bring the people to Himself.

Notice that this is all experiential, existential language. The entire episode is rooted in God’s historical actions. One of the most common mistakes we make as Christians is removing the legal/moral/ethical requirements of Scripture from their relational/experiential context. What do I mean by that? Simply this: Exodus precedes Sinai and the law is embedded in the narrative of God’s actions in human history.When the ACLU wants to remove a display of the Ten Commandments from a courthouse or some other state property, there is usually a rather large outcry from many sectors of the church. But how meaningful are the commandments when they are removed from the narrative context in which God gave them to us? (Judge Roy Moore’s display is stripped of even the most basic narrative element).(Illustration: Cahoots lady – we receive state money so you can’t talk about Jesus. Morality is just a cleaner road to hell!).We tend to make much of performance, while God, on the other hand, makes much of relationship.

Verses 5-6:

If you:

Diligently obey/hear/listen to my voice – amidst the theological and existential cacophony. Think about all of the competing voices the people were exposed to in Egypt.

Egyptian mythology

Their political context as slaves of Egypt

Perhaps it was necessary to get the people out of their Egyptian context and into the wilderness before they were able to really hear God’s voice.Have you ever had trouble hearing God’s voice? Do you think that could be due to the fact that in our culture we are constantly bombarded with noise? Perhaps when we are having trouble hearing the voice of God, we need to get out of the hectic patterns of our daily lives, out of our normal noisy context and into a different setting, into a place of solitude and silence.A wise man once told me, “The urgent crowds out the important. The urgent screams, the important whispers.”

Keep my covenant – We don’t have time this morning to draw out all of the significance of this term but in Exodus, the covenant between God and Israel shares much in common with a marriage covenant. In fact, the covenant ratification in chapter 24 looks a lot like a wedding feast.

A new political reality, absolutely unique in the ANE. Other people groups were organized into kingdoms where power was concentrated in a human king. But this kingdom would be different. It would be a kingdom where power is not concentrated in human rulers, but a kingdom that would be ruled directly by God.

Echoes the priestly nature of Adam and Eve’s work in the garden.

Indicates that they are to function as mediators between God and others. By grace, they were chosen to receive special revelation and they were to mediate this revelation to the other nations.

Holy nation/people – this is the first time in Scripture that holiness is applied to human beings. Up to this point, it has been used to describe time and the ground, but now it is applied to people.

In all actuality, holiness is a quality that is exclusive to God.

Holiness is not essentially a matter of doing, but a matter of being. Authentic doing flows from authentic being. (1Pt 1:14-16). Holy is a stative word describing a state of being, like pregnant. You can’t be a little bit holy any more than you can be a little bit pregnant.

The doing is a byproduct of the being, which is essentially the crux of TSOM. Holiness is exhibited through love for neighbor rather than through separation from neighbor. Did you know that Jesus never uses the word holy to describe people? This is likely due to the fact that by the time Jesus was born, the law had been extracted from its narrative context and people were trying to do holy rather than beholy.This seems to be Jesus’ primary criticism of the Pharisees. In Mt 23 Jesus pronounces seven woes against the Scribes and Pharisees. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.” I don’t think Jesus ever read How to Win Friends and Influence People J. But notice what He is saying; He doesn’t challenge the fact that the Pharisees are running around doing things that on the surface appear to be holy, but that their doing is inauthentic.

Genuine holiness is the byproduct of a relational encounter with the living God. Genuine holiness flows out of our love for God, it is exhibited through love for others, and it generates centripetal force.

The rest of the OT can really be seen as Israel working out the implications of these two verses over time. In many respects, the rest of the OT is the chronicle of Israel’s attempt to come to terms with this vocation of being a kingdom of priests and being a holy people.

Verses 7-8:

“All the Lord has spoken we will do” – Does this strike you as peculiar? They have agreed to the covenant without knowing the covenant stipulations. Isn’t it usually prudent to check out the details before you sign on?

Verse 9: Another experience, not that they would believe God, but that they would believe His prophet.

Conclusion: NT connections: Very nice history, but what does this mean for me?

There is no shortage of ethical instruction in the NT. Paul especially loves to exhort and admonish the church to higher ethical ground. But have you ever realized that the ethical material in the NT is always embedded in the narrative of what God has done in human history through Christ? The book of Romans is a perfect example. The first 11 chapters lay the foundation for the ethical exhortation that begins in chapter 12. 11 chapters of narrative theology is concluded with a hymn of praise and then the ethical implications that accompany God’s historical actions.

1Pt 2:9 – This is profound. Peter takes God’s words to ancient Israel and applies them directly to the NT church. Even more profoundly, he does so in a letter that is addressed to Gentiles! Don’t miss the significance here. By the time the first century rolled around, Israel had developed a perverse and unbiblical concept of holiness. This unbiblical concept of holiness resulted in an arrogance that viewed Gentiles as dogs, and viewed Israelites who didn’t exhibit the highest ethical conduct as profane. An unbiblical view of holiness always results in segregation.

But Peter comes along, grabs the climax of the OT and applies it directly to the church in all its diversity. He says, no you’re not Gentile dogs; you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation.

My friends, by grace we have been called into a new reality. The Father has resurrected Jesus from the dead and has exalted Him as king! Through faith in Christ our sins are forgiven and we are incorporated into His kingdom. Therefore, let us be transformed by God’s grace from the inside out. May we understand that holiness is not so much about what we do as it is about what God has done. And may we proclaim the excellencies of Him who called us out of darkness and into His marvelous light.

The following is the manuscript from a recent sermon I delivered at Oasis Community Church. Some portions are in outline form rather than full manuscript form. One should have his or her Bible close by while going through the expository section. The podcast link above is a recording of the actual sermon as delivered.

The narrative backdrop:

During the Exodus, God used a series of plagues to bring about the ultimate release of His people. But the plagues really served a dual purpose: one is political, the other is theological.

The political purpose: Served by forcing Pharaoh to release the people. Eventually Pharaoh realized he had a political disaster on his hands. Even in ancient Near Eastern monarchies, rulers still, to some extent, derived their power from the consent of the governed. As advanced as the Egyptian military was, there weren’t enough soldiers to suppress a revolt of the entire population. Civil unrest is always threatening to an empire because empires thrive on order.

Theological purpose: Undermined the mythic legitimacy of the empire. The gods were thought to be responsible for keeping things in order. There were gods to govern the flooding of the Nile, gods to govern the rising and setting of the sun, gods to govern the insects, gods to govern the cattle, gods to govern the health of the people; countless gods to keep the world moving along as it should in static, predictable order. All of this mythology was devised to support the legitimacy of the empire. If things continued to go along according in a static orderly fashion, then clearly the gods supported those who were in power. But in the plagues, God’s purpose wasn’t just to create a political problem for Pharaoh; it was to judge the gods of Egypt and to demonstrate that whatever sense of order existed in Egypt was simply an illusion, a myth fabricated to keep power consolidated.

So when God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, He wasn’t setting them free for freedom’s sake; there was something much more significant at work. God was forming an alternative community, a community that would be absolutely unique in the history of the world, a community that provided a radical alternative to empire.

Exposition

Verses 5-6:

“Oh, we remember the fish and cucumbers…” These were the staple items of the diet of an Egyptian laborer. The Nile teemed with fish, and the other items were widely available because they grow well in a hot, moist area like the Nile Delta. The cucumbers of Egypt were evidently of exceptional quality. I’m kind of partial to homegrown Kentucky cucumbers myself. (Pastured poultry).

“…that cost nothing…” Talk about selective memory!
Israel had been reduced to slavery by Egypt, placed under oppressive burdens, and Pharaoh had even ordered the murder of all of the male infants of the Israelites. Was there cost for these things they ate? Well let’s see, would you trade your freedom for a piece of fish? Would you trade the life of your child for a cucumber? The cost was exorbitant! But this is how virtually all abusive relationships function: the relationship is romanticized and that romanticizing blurs and even contradicts the historical facts in a way that romanticizes and makes excuses for the abuser.

Verse 18: “It was better for us in Egypt.” The place of captivity, the place of slavery and oppressive labor, the place of the murder of our children was better. How could this be? On the surface it sounds ridiculous but let’s think about a bit.

The illusion of security in the empire

The breadbasket of Goshen (illusion of provision)

Military might (illusion of shelter)

The underpinning mythology (illusion of stability)

All clearly calculated to bring about the illusion of control and to bring about a very predictable and static future where power stays consolidated and under the dominant regime. But God clearly demonstrated in the various plagues of the Exodus that material security, provision, control, and shelter were nothing more than illusions and the Egyptian pantheon was a farce.

But when imperial security and mythology is exposed as nothing more than a cheap parlor trick, what is left? The reality of the freedom of God. That sounds good doesn’t it? But there is something about freedom, especially God’s freedom, that is at once beautiful, and terrifying.

Beautiful because…

God demonstrates that He is beyond the oppressive, controlling maneuvers of empire.

God’s ear is perpetually inclined to the cries of the oppressed and He acts decisively in human history on their behalf.

But freedom is also terrifying because there is an inherent insecurity in freedom. A free God…

Provides for His people one day at a time rather than with stock-piled staples.

Cannot be controlled or manipulated by ritual or magic

Defends his people without a visible military, and in fact, may choose not to defend them from their attackers if their death on this earth serves a larger purpose in His plan than their life.

Consequently, a free God is an unpredictable God, and an unpredictable God might provide me with a steady diet of manna while allowing me wander through the desert for 40 years in order to purge me of sinful character defects and forge me into the kind of person he desires: one who loves the things He loves, one who hates the things He hates, one who is shaped, marked, and sealed by His holiness.

Verse 20: “You have rejected the Lord who is among you”

Let me say, I can’t find fault with the Israelites for desiring a more varied diet. (Jen calls me a foodie). But don’t miss this. There is more afoot here than simply desiring a nice salad. This is really a longing for Egypt, the place of idolatry and the anti-kingdom. The people have turned their hearts back to Egypt and this is equivalent to the rejection of God. In other words, the illusion of security becomes the idol of security.

Application, individual and spiritualized level

From a spiritual perspective, each of us have been liberated from the oppression of sin and death. Consequently, each of have been liberated from some sort of spiritual Egypt that formerly enslaved us.

The seductive power of the romanticized past – like an abusive relationship with our former sin.

The seductive power of the imagined future: When the Israelites were on their way out of Egypt in the Exodus, do you think this is what they imagined, years in the desert eating manna? They probably imagined a much more glamorous future.The same is true for us. Perhaps we thought the Christian life was going to be more glamorous than it is. This is frequently played out with this formula: “If I just had X, then I could be truly happy, truly satisfied, truly at peace.” But nothing is more deceitful than the seduction of the future, because when I finally obtain X (whatever that may be) I find that it never delivers what I thought it would deliver. So, the moral of the story, as far as the spiritual application goes, is this: Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it… and choke to death on it.

The seductive power of the past and the seductive power of the future rob us of joy in the present. The seduction of both past and future is so powerful precisely because of the anxiety of the present. When the anxiety of the present is eliminated, the past and the future are not so attractive.

Application, collective and political level: The seductive power of empire

The seduction of empire is almost irresistible to the church. It’s fascinating that Jesus was killed for being subversive to the various political and religious power structures of His day but the church He charged to represent His kingdom on earth wants so desperately to collude with empire as if in some way the kingdom of God can be brought about by better government.

Perhaps like the Israelites, we have grown dissatisfied with God’s provision. Or perhaps we doubt God’s leadership. Both of which come down to the same thing: a lack of trust in the God we claim to serve.

And so, many Christians in this country busy themselves with lobbying government or reforming government as if government and empire were the answer to the world’s problems.

But I ask you, does God every really side with empire? Did God side with Assyria when He allowed that empire to destroy the northern kingdom of Israel? Did God side with Babylon when He allowed that empire to overthrow the southern kingdom of Judah and carry its inhabitants off into captivity? I think not. God doesn’t align Himself with human beings; human beings either align themselves with God or they align themselves with Him or they align themselves against Him. In fact, when God brought those empires in to judge Israel, I think He was simply saying to His people, “If you want to play the game of empire, let me show you just how ill-equipped you are for the game.”

So let’s get super contemporary for a moment. I don’t know how much you stay up with current events, but in the world of politics, this is the silly season. And there was a big hullabaloo recently when the Democratic Party omitted the word “God” from their platform and then turned around and put it back in. I, for one, was not offended in the slightest when they removed it and I am sure God did not feel threatened. I actually thought it was an act of integrity. Would that both political parties, indeed all political parties, put an end to the charade by removing the word God from their platforms.

Now why would I say that? First of all, we live in a pluralistic society. Exactly, which god is it that the word refers to? Is it the Muslim god, the Buddhist god, the Mormon god, perhaps one of the Hindu or pagan gods? From reading the platforms, I can’t tell. In fact, it seems to me that each party has invented a mythical god that uncritically supports the various issues of their agenda. It’s a nice neat mythology fabricated to give legitimacy to their structures of power.

So obviously, simply putting the word God in the party platform doesn’t align any political party with the Christian God as the politicians would have us believe.

But let me be very clear about something. Regardless of what their platform may or may not say, the Democratic Party doesn’t represent God. The Republican Party doesn’t represent God. No political party represents God. The simple truth is, there is only one political entity in existence that is chartered with the task of representing God on earth and that is the church.

But the church is not an American enterprise. The church is supposed to operate as a community in exile, a community that at this very moment sojourns in the midst of a myriad of political contexts throughout the world. A community that is supposed to serve as an outpost or a colony for the kingdom of God in the midst the various nation-states of this globe. It is a community that is supposed to make a difference in the world, not in collusion with empire, but in spite of it.

Nevertheless, the seductive power of empire, the shelter and provision of empire, has been a constant temptation for the church from the time of Constantine to the present day. But make no mistake about it, the church ceases to function as the church when it trades the precarious freedom of God for the managed predictability of empire. The church ceases to be the church when it allows itself to be seduced by the state.

Conclusion: Whether it be on the individual/spiritual level or on the collective/political level, may we give ourselves over completely to the one true and free God. May we get about the business of being the kingdom of God on earth. May we stop turning our hearts to Egypt and may we stop trading our truly God-given vocation for fish and cucumbers.

]]>https://everythingistheological.com/fish-and-cucumbers-numbers-11/feed/0Collusion, Seclusion, or Collision? Take Up Your Cross: Luke 9:18-27https://everythingistheological.com/collusion-seclusion-or-collision-take-up-your-cross-luke-918-27/
https://everythingistheological.com/collusion-seclusion-or-collision-take-up-your-cross-luke-918-27/#commentsSat, 07 Jul 2012 02:00:00 +0000http://everythingistheological.com/?p=213Read More...]]>This text contains one of the hard sayings of Jesus that is commonly misinterpreted. If we are to understand it properly, it must be interpreted within its literary and historical context. Sometimes we tend to read too much abstract theology into a text like this without first taking seriously the historical, political, social, and cultural matrix of the people to whom the words were originally spoken and to whom the document was originally written.

18-20: Peter confesses Jesus as Christ. This is a profound thing; for the first time in Luke’s Gospel, a person has referred to Jesus as Christ. But what does the word Christ mean? Well, it’s Jesus’ last name right? No, it means “anointed” or “anointed one.” But what does Peter mean when he identifies Jesus as the “Christ of God?”

Well, we might be tempted to think that Peter has recognized that Jesus is God, but there really is no indication that Peter used the term in this unique theological sense. In fact, from a historical perspective, Peter simply could not be using the term in this sense because it didn’t come to have that nuanced meaning until much later. In other words, Peter is not here declaring the deity of Jesus because “Christ of God” is not primarily a theological term, but a political title.

“The Christ of God” is a Greek translation of the Hebrew term “the LORD’s anointed” which appears 13 times in the OT and always refers to the king of Israel, the king of God’s people. In fact, the title is first used to refer to Saul, Israel’s first king. So when Peter calls Jesus “the Christ of God,” what is he saying? He is not saying that Jesus is God (of course Jesus is God, but Peter doesn’t know that yet); he is proclaiming that Jesus is King.

21-22: “Son of man” is the term that Jesus most frequently used to refer to Himself but what is the significance of this phrase? The term comes from the prophetic vision recorded in the apocalyptic book of Daniel,

“I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed” (Daniel 7:13-14 ESV).

Consequently, like Christ of God, Son of Man is a kingly title referring to the one who receives dominion from the Ancient of Days.

23: The three imperatives of discipleship: deny yourself, take up your cross, follow me.

Deny yourself: this is much more radical than simply denying certain appetites or impulses. It’s the rejection of a life based on self-interest and self-fulfillment. It’s denying control of your life; even denying the impulse for self-preservation, a fact which becomes more clear in the second imperative.

Take up your cross: The problem with the way this text is usually interpreted is that it is done so in an anachronistic and hyper-spiritualized way. We put the cart before the horse when we leap forward to chapter 23, take all of the theological significance of the cross of Christ, everything from Calvary to Easter, and then freight it back into this text in chapter 9. We read all of that theology (vicarious atonement, forensic justification, propitiation, etc.) back into Jesus’ instructions to take up our cross and we thus spiritualize it, inventing Christian clichés to go along with it like, “Everyone has his own cross to bear,” which is usually said in relationship to some manner of individual temptation or addiction.The issue is, there is no way the people to whom these words were spoken could have understood it as a spiritual metaphor because Jesus had not yet been crucified, had not yet been resurrected, and there was no theology of the cross. The cross quite simply, was an instrument of capital punishment and was the standard penalty for insurrection and subversion.See, Jesus’ lifestyle put him on a collisioncourse with the various power structures of the world: the political power structures, the military power structures, and especially the power structures of the religious establishment. And here’s the thing, Jesus knew that because of His lifestyle, because of the things He did and said, He was subversive to these various entities of power. And because He was subversive to them, they would kill Him for it.When one takes up the cross, death is a foregone conclusion. The via dolorosa has only one possible destination. To take the first step on that road is to resign oneself to the fact that death, in one form or another, is not only imminent, but inevitable.

Follow me: Another statement that gets over spiritualized. In His Steps: WWJD. One of the most popular books in history, not to mention the fact that it spawned an entire bracelet industry. But I wonder, is following Jesus simply to ask, “WWJD?” Because it occurs to me that one of the most consistent themes in the Gospels is that Jesus routinely does what nobody expects Him to do. The most common reaction to Jesus is amazement. His disciples, the crowds, the Pharisees, the priests, Herod, Pilate – all were all amazed(θαυμάζω ) at the things Jesus did, said, or didn’t say.So perhaps we shouldn’t pretend that we actually know what Jesus would do. Because in the most common application of that question, the hypothetical answer to WWJD usually ends up being something like, “well, Jesus would have been nice.” The funny thing is, the Jesus I find in the Bible wasn’t really all that nice (cf. Mt 23:13-15, 25, 27, 33), and to “be nice” is not at all what Jesus meant when He said follow me.The most plain understanding of what Jesus is saying to this crowd of people is this, “Because of the way I live my life, because of the things I do and say, I am a threat to those who hold power; they are going to kill me, and I am going to allow it to happen. If you want to follow me, this is where the road leads.”So, Jesus tells His disciples that the road He is on leads to death. Not just spiritual death, but physical martyrdom. So it seems clear that if we are going to follow Jesus, we have to be willing to follow Him all the way to martyrdom. Now just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that everyone who follows Jesus is going to be killed. What I am saying, because this is what the text clearly says, is that everyone who follows Jesus has to be willing to be killed,both spiritually and physically, for the sake of the kingdom.Perhaps, if we want to find the answer to WWJD, in addition to reading In His Steps we should read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs or its contemporary equivalent, Jesus Freaks.

24-25: While the rest of the world is concerned with taking up arms, Jesus calls His followers to take up a cross. While the world holds forth the illusion of life, Jesus bids His disciples, “Come and die.”

This is one of the great paradoxes of Scripture. To gain life by losing life? How does that work? Here again I think we tend to focus too much on a purely spiritual application of this paradox, that goes something like this: “If I live a self-centered life, focused on the present world I will not find eternal life with God; but if I give up a self-centered life of rebellion against God for the sake of Christ and the gospel, I will find everlasting communion with God and peace in the present.” Now as true as this is, there is also a physical component to this paradox that we frequently overlook. I think the reason we overlook the physical reality of this imperative is that we don’t have a proper understanding of the centrality of resurrection. It’s not just something to talk about when studying Revelation or 1Corinthians 15; it’s the underlying assumption of the entire NT.

The temptation to gain the world while losing oneself is ever-present isn’t it? And no one knew this better than Jesus, for this was the second temptation He faced in the desert when Satan offered Him all the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would bow down and worship him. Now if you really think about it, this temptation was not just an offer of power and kingship, Jesus already had power and was already a King. Essentially, the temptation is quite simply to avoid the cross, to short-circuit the path to power the Father had established for the Messiah, and this could only be done by collusion with the enemy.

Down through history, from Constantine to the present day, the church has faced this temptation over and over again. If the church will simply collude with the secular powers, she can avoid persecution; she can rise in power, wealth, and influence. Collusion with the state: this is what happened when the bishops allowed the Roman emperor, Constantine, to appoint himself head of the church in the fourth century; it’s what happens today when the various factions of the American church align themselves with the various secular political parties and in effect become a political tool for the state.

On an individual or personal level, since we live in a culture that is saturated with materialism, consumerism, and power, the temptation to gain the world at the cost of oneself is constant. May we never lose sight of the fact that the acquisition of these things comes at a tragic cost, and only in collusion with the enemy of our souls.

But let us for a moment consider the opposite course to collusion. The temptation to seclusion is as powerful as the temptation to collusion.

In Jesus’ day, there was a Jewish sect called the Essenes who went out into the desert to form a pure and holy community that would be unstained by the world. One such community was at a place called Qumran, which is the place where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. The Essenes didn’t want to defile themselves by coming into contact with people and things that were unclean so they retreated to desert isolation and seclusion to await the Messiah. The funny thing is, the Messiah came, but they didn’t know it because they were cloistered away in seclusion.

There are many examples of this in the contemporary church. One might point to our Amish brothers and sisters as an obvious example. But might I suggest that seclusion is much more prevalent in less obvious ways in the church today. In some areas of the church, a misconstrued preoccupation with personal holiness has not only descended into legalism, but has actually evolved into in a form of seclusion where believers are not supposed to associate with unbelievers. This crowd is fond of quoting the verse, “Come out from among them and touch no unclean thing.” Perhaps when we are tempted with this kind of seclusion we should remind ourselves that Jesus most frequently rubbed elbows with people who had been marginalized by “holiness.”

Following Jesus doesn’t mean to be isolated from the world, sitting in nice church buildings with our nice Christian friends, and entertaining ourselves until Jesus returns. In fact, if seclusion is our approach to following Jesus, when Jesus does return we might just miss it, like the Essenes did the first time around.

Conclusion

So what does it mean to take up our crosses and follow Jesus? It means that when faced with the temptation to seclusion and the temptation to collusion, like Jesus, we will choose the third way: collision. Because if we live our lives like Jesus did, we will inevitably find ourselves colliding with the various political and religious power structures of the world, and to collide with those power structures is a dangerous thing, which is exactly why Jesus tells us to take up our crosses.

But wait, we don’t really face persecution like that in the US. May I suggest a radical idea? The reason we don’t face persecution from the power structures of the world is this: we aren’t following the real Jesus. We are like the church in Laodicea from Revelation 3. We are following a Jesus of our own invention; maybe a Jesus who is wrapped in an American flag, or a Jesus who has a machine gun in His hand, or a Jesus who is a soft, cuddly, emasculated, friendly fellow who is too nice to expect anything hard from us.

The real Jesus draws a line in the sand and we all stand on one side or the other: we either love Him to the point that we are willing to die for Him, or we hate Him to the point that we want to kill Him. If we find ourselves ambivalent about Jesus, it’s only because we have not yet encountered the genuine article, the real Jesus recorded in the pages of the Gospels. Make no mistake about it, when we encounter the real Jesus, there is no middle ground, we will either love Him and be willing to die for Him, or we will hate Him and want Him dead.

Following Jesus is costly; it costs everything, absolutely everything. But it’s only in being willing to lose our lives, both spiritually and physically, that we save them. Collusion, seclusion, or collision; the choice is yours but only one path really follows in His steps.

]]>https://everythingistheological.com/collusion-seclusion-or-collision-take-up-your-cross-luke-918-27/feed/1Formation – A Brief Reflectionhttps://everythingistheological.com/formation-a-brief-reflection/
https://everythingistheological.com/formation-a-brief-reflection/#respondWed, 04 Jul 2012 13:16:40 +0000http://everythingistheological.com/?p=210Read More...]]>Along with middle-age has come bifocals, muscles that take longer to recover than they used to, and a profound sense that, contrary to prior assumptions, I am not going to live forever after all. Nonetheless, one of the few nice things about being middle-aged is that by the time one has reached his forties, he has enough life behind him to provide for fruitful reflection. As I reflect on my life, it immediately becomes clear that there are a few individuals who positively impacted me in such a way as to change the trajectory of my life. The first to come to mind beyond my parents and grandparents, are my high school wrestling and cross-country coaches, Larry Emery and Dick Warvel, respectively. These men invested countless hours in young lives and were more concerned about forming better human beings than forming athletes.

The other two men that have made a significant impact upon me I met while attending Bethel College. The first class I took when I transferred to Bethel was Evangelism & Discipleship taught by Dr. John Dendiu. Not only did Dr. Dendiu introduce me the works of the spiritual giants, but he also challenged my understanding of the church and opened my mind to the world of spiritual formation. Dr. Dendiu is a pastor’s pastor whose heart and genuine concern for the student always comes through in his teaching. He continues to be a mentor in my life.

While the impact these men made upon me is profound, perhaps no one (outside of my father and grandfather) has left a deeper impression upon me than Dr. Gene Carpenter. Until his untimely death a couple of days ago, Dr. Carpenter was Professor of Old Testament and Hebrew at Bethel College. After my first undergrad class with him I registered for every class he taught. For a while he probably thought I was stalking him. I was simply blown away, not only by his vast knowledge, but by his passion for the Bible. His intellect was complemented by his personal warmth, sharp wit, and keen sense of humor. He was responsible for kindling my passion for the Old Testament, biblical theology, and biblical Hebrew. Indeed, the fact that I am studying at Asbury Theological Seminary today is due, in no small part, to his encouragement. He will be sorely missed.

As we proceed through life we come into contact with many people. If we are fortunate, some of these points of contact will impact us in ways that will make us more fully human and will irreversibly change our lives. To say that these men served that formative purpose in my life is to say far too little. They impacted me in a way that not only changed my trajectory, but also left an indelible mark on my soul. I am deeply grateful that God blessed me though my association with them, and while time, distance, or death may separate us in the present moment, I look forward to spending eternity with them.

]]>https://everythingistheological.com/formation-a-brief-reflection/feed/0Unfailing Love – Isaiah 54:4-10https://everythingistheological.com/unfailing-love-isaiah-544-10/
https://everythingistheological.com/unfailing-love-isaiah-544-10/#commentsMon, 11 Jun 2012 15:56:12 +0000http://everythingistheological.com/?p=203Read More...]]>What is the first human relationship recorded in the Bible? The marriage relationship between Adam and Eve. The first thing God created after He created the first two people was the institution of marriage. The first wedding occurs in Genesis chapter 2 and the last wedding (between Christ and the church) occurs all the way at the end of the Bible in Rev 19.

It’s not a trivial fact that the canon opens and closes with a wedding. These two chapters actually stand at the beginning and end of human history, and since history begins and ends with a wedding, I think it is safe to say that God has a nuptial view of history. In fact, the marriage metaphor permeates the Scriptures where God is routinely depicted as the husband, and his people are depicted as the wife. Consequently, a godly marriage, where the husband loves and cherishes his wife and the wife respects her husband, where the wife submits to the leadership of her husband and the husband lays down his life for his bride, this type of marriage is not only honoring to God, but is actually the perfect illustration of the relationship between God and His people.

The text for this message comes from Isaiah 54:4-10. But before I read it, let me quickly sketch, in some very broad strokes, the historical setting of this text. Isaiah was a prophet who prophesied in the time leading up to a period in Israelite history known as the Babylonian captivity. It is called the Babylonian captivity because God’s people had rejected Him by turning to idolatry and injustice, so God brought the fierce Babylonian Empire in from the north to destroy Jerusalem in 586 B.C. as an act of judgment for the unfaithfulness of His people. The Babylonians then carried off the inhabitants of the land, the Judahites, to Babylon where they were held as captives for seventy years.

God warned the people through Isaiah that if they did not turn from their sin, this was exactly what was going to happen, but as people often do, they ignored the prophet of God at their own peril and God allowed them to suffer the consequences of their actions. In the passage at hand, God is now consoling the people who have been taken captive by reminding them that He is their husband, that His love for them is unfailing, and that He will ultimately bring them back to their land and restore them to the position of His wife.

Now for the text:

“‘Fear not, for you will not be ashamed;
be not confounded, for you will not be disgraced;
for you will forget the shame of your youth,
and the reproach of your widowhood you will remember no more.
For your Maker is your husband,
the LORD of hosts is his name;
and the Holy One of Israel is your Redeemer,
the God of the whole earth he is called.
For the LORD has called you
like a wife deserted and grieved in spirit,
like a wife of youth when she is cast off,
says your God.
For a brief moment I deserted you,
but with great compassion I will gather you.
In overflowing anger for a moment
I hid my face from you,
but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you,’
says the LORD, your Redeemer.
‘This is like the days of Noah to me:
as I swore that the waters of Noah
should no more go over the earth,
so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you,
and will not rebuke you.
For the mountains may depart
and the hills be removed,
but my steadfast love shall not depart from you,
and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,’
says the LORD, who has compassion on you.” (Isaiah 54:4-10 ESV)

God begins by comforting the people and then reminds them that He is not only their Creator, but is also their husband. Although the people have been unfaithful to Him by worshiping other gods, behaving like an adulterous wife, God loves them so deeply and so compassionately, that He will take them back.

But the questions is, why? After all the people had done, after all the unfaithfulness in spite of His patient warnings, why would God take back this adulterous people? Well, he tells us in verse 10. “Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken…”

This term unfailing love is one of several ways Bible scholars attempt to translate the Hebrew word hesed into English. Hesed is a fascinating word because there is no direct English equivalent for it; no one English word captures the depth of meaning that is so densely packed in hesed. Sometimes it is translated as steadfast love, loving kindness, everlasting kindness, etc. But at its core is the idea of faithfulness, loyalty, mercy, and love. This word is used some 245 times in Scripture and most of those instances have God as the subject and His people as the object. In fact, this is one of the words God uses to describe His character in Exodus 34 as He passes before Moses. Make no mistake about it, God is a God of unfailing love.

Another fascinating thing about hesed, this unfailing love, is that it is not something one feels, but it is something one does. While feelings of love may come and go, hesed is essentially a decision, a choice to remain faithful regardless of circumstances, and as such hesed is a love that is unshakable and unfailing.

So, you might be thinking, “God’s unfailing love for His people caused Him to intercede on their behalf and led to their release from captivity 2,500 years ago. That’s a beautiful story, but what does it mean for me today?” Well, I’m glad you asked, because although Isaiah was written over 2,500 years ago, it is as significant for you and me today as it was to the original audience back then, and here’s why:

To really understand God’s unfailing love in chapter 54 of Isaiah, we have to look at chapter 53, which is a prophecy about the Messiah:

”

Who has believed what he has heard from us?
And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant,
and like a root out of dry ground;
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
and no beauty that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by men;
a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief;
and as one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Surely he has borne our griefs
and carried our sorrows;
yet we esteemed him stricken,
smitten by God, and afflicted.
But he was pierced for our transgressions;
he was crushed for our iniquities;
upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace,
and with his wounds we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned—every one—to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
yet he opened not his mouth;
like a lamb that is led to the slaughter,
and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent,
so he opened not his mouth.
By oppression and judgment he was taken away;
and as for his generation, who considered
that he was cut off out of the land of the living,
stricken for the transgression of my people?
And they made his grave with the wicked
and with a rich man in his death,
although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him;
he has put him to grief;
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he poured out his soul to death
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.”
(Isaiah 53 ESV)

So, who is that passage about? As the gospel writers have made abundantly clear, this passage is a prophecy about Jesus, the Messiah. If you have seen Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ, this description of the Messiah suffered brings many of those vivid images to mind doesn’t it?

I mentioned before that hesed is something one does, and God does hesed with His people by sending His Son, Jesus, to take on human flesh and to offer Him as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind. Now that’s unfailing love, not just on the part of the Father, but also on the part of the Son.

Let us focus for a moment on 53:4-6, “Surely he has borne our griefsand carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all” (ESV).

On the cross Jesus took the penalty for your sins and mine. You see, every single person in this room deserves nothing but the wrath of God. All of us are sinners by birth and by choice; we have all gone astray; we have all earned a one-way ticket to eternal suffering in hell. But God has sent His Son, Jesus to offer us an alternative to that fate.

Note the punishment that He underwent: He was pierced for our transgressions, referring to being nailed to the cross; He was crushed under the burden of our iniquities; He was punished as if He were the one who broke God’s law when in fact He is the only person who has ever walked the earth who kept God’s law perfectly.

But as horrific as these physical sufferings were, they were nothing compared to the spiritual suffering He endured in His final 3 hours on the cross, as He bore the wrath of God for the sin of mankind. It wasn’t the scourging, or the crown of thorns, or the nails of the cross that caused Jesus to sweat drops of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane; it was the fact that He knew He would have to drink the cup of the righteous wrath of God for the sins of humanity… and He freely chose to do it. I ask you, what greater love can exist? Can there be any greater example of extravagant, unfailing love?

However, Jesus’ sacrificial, atoning death is only part of the picture. Jesus didn’t come only to die on a cross and to bear the punishment for our sins. The Scriptures are clear: three days later He rose from the dead, He was exalted by the Father, and He was crowned Lord of lords and King of kings. And the good news is, this King offers us the opportunity for a different fate. This King offers us the opportunity to enter His kingdom, and to enter into a relationship with Him based on His unfailing love.

This, my friends, is the good news of the gospel: you can be forgiven of your sins and spared the wrath of God by receiving His Son as King! Now let me be very clear about how to do that. Receiving Jesus has nothing to do with repeating a little prayer after someone, or inviting Him into your heart, or filling out a commitment card, or raising your hand, or walking to an alter.

When the Scriptures talk about receiving Jesus, a technical term is used that means to accept one for who they claim to be. To receive Jesus is to accept Him, in faith, for who He claims to be: the Son of God, Lord, and Messiah. To receive Him in faith means to genuinely believe that Jesus is Lord and when I genuinely believe that fact, my entire life will change. I will repent of my sin (which means turn away from sin), and my will is brought into submission to His will; rather than going my own way, I now want to live a life of obedience to Him.

This is radical! This one truth has the capacity to change not only your eternal destiny, but your entire life in the here and now: Jesus is Lord! But this radical truth requires a radical commitment on your part. Following this Lord is not for the faint of heart. If you receive Jesus as Lord it means you are also rejecting all other claims of lordship on your life, and when you truly follow this Lord, the world will treat you the same way it treated Him: with contempt, with persecution, with rejection.

The gospel is not about your best life now, it is about laying down your life for Him who gave His life for you. Following Jesus will cost you everything, but the rewards are unfathomable.

I invite you to respond to this message by turning from sin and receiving Jesus as King. I invite you to lay your life down for Him and to enter His kingdom. I invite you to believe this life-saving and life-changing truth: Jesus is Lord!

10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked from him a king.

11 And he said, “This will be the custom of the king who will rule over you: your sons he will take and appoint among his chariots and among his horsemen, and they will run before his chariots.

12 And he will appoint for himself captains of thousands and captains of fifties, and to plow his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots.

13 And your daughters he will take for perfumers and for cooks and for bakers.

14 And your best fields and your best vineyards and your best olive trees he will take and give to his servants.

15 And of your seed and of your vineyards he will confiscate one tenth, and give to his high officials and to his servants.

16 And your best manservants and your maidservants and your young men and your asses he will take and apply to his work.

17 Of your flocks he will confiscate one tenth, and you will be slaves to him.

18 And you will cry out on that day on account of your king that you chose for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you on that day.”

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The eighth chapter of First Samuel functions as one of the major pivot points in the historical development of ancient Israel. Following the conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the Israelites were organized as a loose tribal confederacy and were governed, primarily on an ad hoc military basis, by a series of charismatic judges. This form of ad hoc governance followed a distinctive pattern (referred to as the “Judges cycle”) containing a typical sequence of events: 1) the theological apostasy of the Israelites (characteristically through the practice of idolatry), introduced by the formulaic statement, “…the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord…” (Judges 2:11; 3:7; 3:12; 4:1; 6:1; 10:6; 13:1); 2) the oppression of Israel by a foreign nation/state; 3) the crying out of the people to God for deliverance, introduced by the formula, “…the people of Israel cried out to the Lord…” (Judges 3:9; 3:15; 4:3; 6:6; 7:20; 10:10); and 4) God responding to the cry of the people by raising up a deliverer or prophet (Judges 2:16-18; 3:9, 15; 6:7).

This chapter brings the Judges cycle to an effective conclusion as the people demand to be reorganized into a monarchial form of government. Two main factors influenced the elders’ decision to ask Samuel for a king. First, the confederated tribes were experiencing a substantial amount of collective anxiety related to what appeared to be the ever-present threat of war with the Philistines, a condition Keith Bodner terms “national insecurity.”[1] Secondly, Samuel had broken from the normal pattern of God raising a judge in response to the cry of the people, by appointing his sons to a sort of dynastic judgeship (1Sam 8:1). Unfortunately, rather than following the example of their father’s integrity, the sons fell to corruption by taking bribes and perverting justice (1Sam 8:3).

EXPOSITION

10-18: In response to the people’s request for a king, Samuel conveys to them the “words of the Lord” which function as a solemn warning of exactly what will happen if the people insist upon establishing a monarchial form of government with the installation a king.

10: Samuel functioned in the roles of prophet, priest, and judge in Israel, however, in the immediate context he is functioning in true prophetic form as he conveys the words of the Lord to the people. Those to whom Samuel is addressing the words of the Lord are here referred to as “the people who had asked of him a king” (הָעָ֕ם הַשֹּׁאֲלִ֥ים מֵאִתּוֹ֖ מֶֽלֶךְ), while in 8:4 they are referred to as “the elders of Israel” (זִקְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל). This selection of terms may have been made for pejorative or satirical purposes, having the effect of lowering the elders in rank based on their conduct.[2] It is interesting to note that the last recorded speech of the elders was to suggest that the Ark of the Covenant be brought to battle with the Philistines, a decision which had disastrous consequences (1Sam 4:3).[3]

11: The use of the word מִשְׁפָּט is interesting here because scholars are divided on the best way to render the word in English. Tsumura suggests that the word should be rendered “right” based on its forensic connotation and explains that the passage simply delineates the rights of a king in an ancient Near East monarchial society.[4] However, in light of Deuteronomy 17:14 ff., it is clear that such behavior is not appropriate for Israel’s king, thus it is difficult to accept that Samuel/God would have used מִשְׁפָּט to refer to the king’s legal right. Consequently, “manner” or “custom” is likely the best English rendering, as in this context Samuel is conveying a solemn warning to the people about the general conduct of any ruler once power and wealth have been consolidated into a permanent office or institution.

The verb לָקַח in the independent clause following the athnach (punctuated by the colon in the above translation) is rendered “take,” but also connotes “to lay hold of” or “seize,”[5] thus, in the immediate context, forcible seizure is implied. This clause also introduces a syntactical construction that, while uncommon in biblical Hebrew, becomes thematic in this prophetic speech: the direct object of the clause, along with the definite direct object marker (אֶת־בְּנֵיכֶ֣ם) precedes the verb and is always appended with the second masculine plural pronominal suffix (כֶם). This syntax serves to add emphasis to the direct object as the thing that will be taken or confiscated by the king. Additionally, the repetition of the second masculine plural pronominal suffix (כֶם) juxtaposed against the third person singular suffix (וֹ) emphasizes the transition in ownership with the recurrence of the broad conceptual structure, “your x will become his.”

Not surprisingly, the list of things to be seized by the king begins with what seems to be the most treasured ancient near Eastern possession: “sons.” Among other things, the sons will be conscripted for service related to the king’s royal chariotry. Although it has been suggested that this prophetic speech is intended to be an indictment against the reign of Saul, there is no mention of chariotry in Israel until the reign of David.[6] Moreover, the use of men running before royal chariots is mentioned in regard to Absalom’s attempted usurpation of David’s rule (2Sam 15:1-6) and the accumulation of chariots and horses occurs during the reign of Solomon. Thus, it would seem that rather than having the reign of one particular king in view, the speech is polemical of kingship in general (at the very least, kingship according to the standard ancient Near Eastern model).

12: Before the establishment of the monarchy, military service was ad hoc and voluntary. However, by drafting sons for military service, the formation of a standing army is implied, and soldiers in a standing army or on military expedition must be provisioned. Consequently, those not selected for military service will be conscripted for labor for the support of the imperial court and the military through agriculture and fabrication of implements of war. Since plowing and harvesting represent the inception and culmination of the horticultural enterprise[7], the conscription of sons for this type of service should be seen as a permanent arrangement.

13: In the patriarchal culture of the ancient Near East, where women were frequently treated as chattel, it is significant that daughters appear next on the list of persons and items to be seized by the king, as it appears to be arranged in a top-down, hierarchical fashion relative to the importance of what (or who) is being seized. The term (אֶת־בְּנוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם) functions as the direct object of the verb, occurs syntactically prior to the verb, and is appended with the second plural masculine pronominal suffix. Consequently, “your daughters” will also be conscripted to serve as perfumers (or ointment-mixers), cooks, and bakers for the benefit of the royal court. All three professions were in high demand in the ancient world.[8]

14: The object of seizure now moves from family members to the choicest agricultural assets: fields, vineyards, and olive trees. These assets provide the capital foundation for producing some of the most widely traded and valuable commodities in the ancient Near East, including grains, wine, fresh grapes, raisins, olives, and olive oil. It is not coincidental that these are the very assets listed in the covenant renewal at Shechem in Joshua 24:13, “I gave you a land on which you had not labored and cities that you had not built, and you dwell in them. You eat the fruit of vineyards and olive orchards that you did not plant” (emphasis mine). Not only will the assets that God had gifted to the people be seized, they will be given (נָתַן) to the king’s servants in a reallocation of property.

15: There is no biblical or archaeological evidence that would suggest taxation in any form occurred in Israel under the judges.[9] However, with the installation of a king will come the establishment of a system of royal taxation. Not only will the choicest agricultural assets be seized, but one-tenth of the produce of the remaining assets will be confiscated (עשׂר) and distributed to members of the king’s royal infrastructure.

16: In addition to the seizure of the best capital assets (fields, vineyards, and olive trees), the best of the strong young men, servants, and working livestock (who provide the labor or means of production) will be taken and applied to the king’s endeavors.[10]

17: In addition to the ten percent tax on agricultural produce, one-tenth of the flocks of the people will be confiscated, rendering a ten percent tax on the other main source of agricultural production, animal husbandry. Given the fact that the economy in Israel was primarily agrarian, this levy coupled with the levy on horticulture, was tantamount to a ten percent income tax.

Finally and climactically, the people will forfeit the freedom they had enjoyed under the theocracy of God, as their family members are taken, their possessions are seized, their income is taxed, and they are ultimately reduced to slaves of the king and the imperial structure.

18: As a result, the people will cry out to God for relief from the oppression of their chosen king, but the Lord will not answer their cry. This is a drastic change from the pattern established in the canon prior to Samuel 8. From Exodus 3:7 through all of the cycles of the judges, God’s ear was inclined to His oppressed people and their cries moved Him to compassion. However, when His people willfully reject Him and embrace a domestic source of oppression, He will no longer answer their cries; a chilling development indeed.

SUMMATION AND SYNTHESIS

God’s purpose for Israel was to be a unique people among the nations, and as a theocratic tribal confederation, they certainly stood out against the geopolitical landscape of the ancient Near East. Nonetheless, the stated purpose behind the elders’ request for a king was that they wished to be “like all the nations” (1Sam 8:5). As mentioned above, Samuel’s advanced years, coupled with the fact that his sons, whom he had appointed as his successors, were greedy and corrupt (1Sam 8:3), likely produced a high level of anxiety among the tribal leaders relating to the seemingly ever-present specter of war with the Philistines.

God’s response to their request was to solemnly warn the people of what would eventually happen once a monarchial form of government was established: conscription, confiscation, taxation, and slavery; in short, a return to the state of affairs the Hebrews had experienced, and God had miraculously delivered them from, while they were enslaved in Egypt. This generation was not so far removed from Egypt that the bitterness of slavery would have faded from their collective tribal memory, yet even the first generation of the Exodus longed for the illusion of security that accompanied their sojourn there (Nu 11:5). Indeed, Egypt functions as the biblical archetype of the imperial model, and the request for a king was not only a request to adopt that dysfunctional system of oppression, but was also an implicit rejection of the freedom and the theocratic ideal established by God.

Brueggemann explains that this articulation of imperial ideology “is the harshest, most extensive criticism of monarchy in the Old Testament,” yet its appearance at this point in the text seems a bit abrupt and has caused some scholars to speculate that it is a post-Solomonic insertion.[11] However, from the perspective of biblical theology, it seems to be a critique not just of Israelite or Solomonic monarchy in particular, but of the consolidation of human political power in general. Certainly this was the manner of the kings of the other ancient Near East nation states, but from a biblical perspective, from primordial Babel to the Roman Empire, this is what happens whenever political power is permanently concentrated (contra the ad hoc nature of the temporary consolidation of power under the various charismatic judges).

This seems to be exactly the point Jesus is driving at when He says, “You know that those who seem to be rulers of the nations lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life in ransom for many” (Mk 10:42-45).[12] It is significant that Jesus refers to them as those who seem to be (present active participle of δοκέω: “seem” or “appear to be”) rulers, the implication being that they are imposters because they overpower and oppress those who are supposed to be under their authority. A genuine King, on the other hand, serves those whom are placed under his authority, and is consequently life-giving rather than life-taking.

When we contrast the theocracy of God with Samuel’s description of the monarchy of man, it becomes immediately evident that God is a giving King who graciously bestows freedom on His subjects, while the earthly king is a taker and enslaver. It seems unthinkable that human beings would opt for the latter, yet it remains a perpetual temptation to exchange the precarious feeling of unstructured freedom for the illusory security of man made organizations and hierarchies. The tragic cost of such an exchange and the fact that so many are willing to make it, is a testimony to just how far human beings are willing to go to alleviate their self-imposed anxiety.

Samuel’s warning stands in sharp contrast with the instruction of Deuteronomy 17:14-20 where the king is forbidden to acquire excessive horses, wives, or wealth, and he is expected to know and do the Torah “lest his heart be lifted up above his brothers.” Of course, in the history of Israel (indeed, in the history of the world), there was only one King who actually lived out this monarchial ideal, and He was crucified by His subjects.

As we bridge contexts, we must ask ourselves if this articulation of imperial ideology is localized and time-bound or if is it universally applicable. In our present context we may be tempted to draw distinctions between the functions of monarchies and other forms of government (e.g., democracies, democratic republics, etc.), but to do so is to miss the point of the text. The entire canon bears witness to the fact that there are only two kingdoms from which human beings may choose: the kingdom of God and the kingdom of darkness (which includes all the kingdoms of man); we may only align ourselves with one, place our hope in one, swear our allegiance to one.[13]

This is not to suggest that all human political entities are fundamentally evil or even to suggest that Christians should not participate in government affairs. In fact, Jeremiah’s words to the Judahites in exile ring true for us today, “…seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” (Jer 29:7). Nonetheless, we must never lose sight of the fact that the empire of our birth is not equivalent to the kingdom of God, and like Paul, we must be ever mindful of the reality that while our ultimate citizenship is heavenly, we should not hesitate to leverage the advantages of our earthly citizenship for the advancement of the kingdom of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

TEXT CRITICISM

There are few text critical issues with this passage. The ones that do exist are minor and carry no significant theological payload. In verse 12, the Septuagint (LXX) uses technical military terms to describe the extent of the authority of the sons who were conscripted for military service (χιλίαρχος and ἑκατοντάρχης). This results in the modification of the MT “captains of fifties” to “leaders of hundreds,” ἑκατοντάρχης being a technical term for a Roman centurion that was in common use at the time of the LXX translation effort. The Syriac also modifies this verse with “…1000…100…50…10… ” in an apparent attempt to harmonize the passage with Deuteronomy 1:15.

In verse 16, LXX adds “your cattle” (βουκόλια ὑμῶν) to the list of servants and livestock that will be confiscated by the king and applied to his service. Reconstructing a Hebrew source for this would require the subitution of בָּקָר (cattle) for בָּחוּר (young men), which would necessitate the replacment of the characters חוּ with ק. Although the consonants ק and ח are similar phonetically, the removal of the Shureq produces a different vocalization thus it is unlikely that this is a case of homophony. Although the LXX reading fits the context better, it is difficult to imagine how an unintentional scribal error of this sort would be introduced in MT if בָּחוּר is original. Consequently, the harder reading of the MT seems best.

The Qere, LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate provide the expected copula, which is absent in the MT, to the first word of verse 17 (צֹאנְכֶ֖ם). Since the last letter of verse 16 is a holem waw (וֹֽ), the absence of the copula in MT can likely be explained as an instance of haplography, thus the originality of the waw conjunctive is probable.

Finally, LXX adds the phrase “because you chose for yourselves a king” (ὅτι ὑμεῖς ἐξελέξασθε ἑαυτοῖς βασιλέα) at the end of verse 18. This addition appears to be an attempt to explain God’s refusal to answer the cry of the people and thus is a theological gloss.

[10] See the discussion of the substitution of “cattle” for “young men” in the Text Criticism section above.

[11] Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1990), 63.

[12] Present author’s translation. In context, James and John are not asking to rule the Gentiles, but to rule Israel as the vicegerents of Jesus. Accordingly, ἄρχειν τῶν ἐθνῶν should be rendered “rulers of the nations” rather than “rulers of the Gentiles.”